ROME -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pledged an additional $60 million in aid to Syrian opposition forces Thursday, including food and medical support directly to armed rebels for the first time but turning aside their demand for weapons. Kerry, on his first foreign trip as America's top diplomat, said that the extra assistance would help "the legitimate voice of the Syrian people," who have been trying in vain for nearly two years to topple President Bashar Assad. Kerry said Assad had "long ago lost his legitimacy...and must be out of power.

This post has been updated. Please see below for details. WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Wednesday that the United States and allies are jointly planning new ways to accelerate the fall of the Syrian regime, amid signs that Washington may begin directly providing non-lethal aid to opposition fighters. Speaking in Paris one day before a gathering of Syrian opposition officials and world leaders in Rome, Kerry said U.S. officials and allies are discussing ways to convince Syrian President Bashar Assad "that he can't shoot his way out of this.

A new word defines the debate over Syria in Washington: endgame. Policymakers expect the regime in Damascus to fall soon, and their focus has shifted to what happens then. In a cold-blooded, pragmatic sense, the United States and its allies don't want Bashar Assad's government to collapse immediately. Nobody's ready - inside Syria or out - to pick up the pieces. A sudden collapse could produce the same kind of chaos that enveloped Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. And with no U.S. Army units on hand in Syria to help restore order, there is fear that the regime's chemical weapons might fall into the hands of terrorists.

After 20 months and tens of thousands of deaths, the civil war in Syria may be reaching a turning point. The ragtag group of rebels that took up arms during the Arab Spring has advanced to the outskirts of Damascus and has a credible chance, if all goes well, of ousting the Assad dynasty that has ruled the country for more than 40 years. Should the United States, which mostly has confined its involvement to fruitless efforts to oust President Bashar Assad through economic sanctions, belatedly get involved militarily?

When it comes to "hard power," the West is in steep decline. Virtually every nation in Europe is cutting its defense budget. Japan refuses to spend more than 1% of its gross domestic product on defense. And Australia is slashing its military budget, leaving it at just 1.5% of GDP, the smallest ratio in more than seven decades. Now add in the cuts of more than $800 billion in current and planned spending on U.S. defenses, with the prospect of nearly $500 billion more over the next 10 years.

No manifestation of the "Arab Spring" was more dramatic than the popular uprising that ousted Egypt's longtime autocrat, Hosni Mubarak. Until recently, however, it was unclear whether a broad-based revolution would be sabotaged either by a military coup or by an elected Islamist government unwilling to govern in an inclusive way. There will be many opportunities still for this revolution to go awry, but the Egyptian military and President Mohamed...

Egypt's progress toward democracy over the last 15 months has been raucous, colorful and inevitably complicated. Its dismantling has been dizzyingly swift. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Constitutional Court dissolved the parliament, saying electoral rules had been broken. Then the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces exempted itself from civilian oversight and claimed a decisive role in lawmaking and in the drafting of Egypt's constitution. It also assigned a general to "advise" Egypt's new president.

From the moment it was announced that Egypt's authoritarian president, Hosni Mubarak, was stepping down, experts in that country and abroad warned that the Egyptian military wouldn't be content with a limited and transitional role. That prophecy has come to pass, posing a challenge not only for democrats in Egypt and for its newly elected president but for its ally and benefactor, the United States. The Obama administration, which earlier this year waived congressional restrictions in order to keep sending military aid to Egypt, should reconsider that decision if the armed forces continue to thwart democracy.

Weary as Americans are of the war in Afghanistan, it has been obvious for some time that the United States would continue to play a role in that country after Afghan forces assume full control of security in 2014. So it isn't surprising that Washington and Kabul have reached a draft "strategic partnership" agreement under which the U.S. will continue providing military, economic and other aid to Afghanistan for another decade. In principle, a continuing relationship is perfectly defensible, but it needs to be circumscribed to prevent a re-escalation ofU.S.

February 26, 2012 | By Jeffrey Fleishman and Amro Hassan, Los Angeles Times

The criminal trial of 16 American pro-democracy workers opened in Cairo on Sunday as U.S. and Egyptian diplomats attempted to resolve a deepening crisis between longtime allies that have grown increasingly estranged since the uprisings that have swept the Arab world in the last year. The politically charged case, punctuated by bruising rhetoric on both sides, is a sign of Washington's ebbing influence in the region and a test of Egypt's ruling military council's ability to finesse an end to a drama that could result in the curtailment of $1.3 billion in annual U.S. military aid. Contradictory signals from the Egyptian government and perceived U.S. arrogance have hampered a resolution.